Matthew

Ok then. Should embryos created during IVF legally be considered children? After further reading, it turns out that Alabama did in fact create a law that attempted to address the problem (see SB 159), which the governor signed into law. However, the hospital in the alabama case has not resumed IVF procedures and other clinics in that state are sending their embryos to other states, because the new law still does not resolve the central problem. The Alabama court applied the emryos-are-children anti-abortion principle to IVF and the the new law does not change that stance, and in fact holds companies liable if their medical equipment is involved in the destruction of an embryo.

Yeah, I did that in the second sentence of the OP. I agree there is political gamemanship involved muddying the issue. It sounds like you're confident though that republicans will take real action in favor of IVF. I guess we'll see. Do you think the minority of hardline evangelicals within the party who oppose IVF will ultimately call the shots on this issue?

No, republicans are all over the place with it. After an Alabama court used their states anti-abortion law to prosecute someone in an IVF clinic, the Alabama republicans scrambed to try to make an exception but that hasn't gone anywhere yet. In June the US Senate started a bill to make IVF legal, but Senate republicans overwhelmingly rejected it. Although around the same time, the SBC voted to stand against IVF:

So where is the disconnect between the republican platform and the actions of seemingly a majority of republican lawmakers who have so far not come down on the side of protecting this procedure from anti- abortion laws?

They won't do the procedure if there are no fertilized embryos that have reached a certain level of maturity (called the blastocyst stage). According to this account, it usually takes fertilization attempts on about a dozen mature eggs to produce 1 normal embryo. Ideally if they can collect many eggs they will attempt to produce several healthy embryos and they can then freeze viable embryos for future IVF cycles.

Id like to see an interview with trump where they just ask him simple questions about what things are in the government to see what he comprehends. For instance Id legitimately like to know if he thinks "assylum seekers" are people from insane assylums, hence his frequent nonsensical claims that counties are sending all their insane people to the US.

The procedure involves fertilizing many eggs. If they aren't fertilized they are doing the procedure wrong.

By what measure?

Yes, but who's leading them?

IVF is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, even by quite a huge share of anti-abortion-in-all-cases Republicans. A few republicans have proposed bills to protect IVF from anti-abortion laws. But so far a conservative Alabama court this year sided against IVF in a case, and this summer a large number of republican lawmakers in Congress sided against protecting IVF in a bill that would have done so. So has the republican consensus on this already been decided and if so, what is it and why?

Here is video for you to learn what arguments are:

You used the word argument and then could not identify an argument. So one has to wonder whether you understand the concept.

Ok, no argument of mine identifed in that post. Do you know what an argument is?

Ah ok, which argument specifically?

There is a perfectly germane connection between right wing anti-trans movement and the thesis of this thread. You've already admitted you have no interest in talking about that topic and have instead tried your hardest to make it a thread about your irrelevant thoughts on specific transgender policies.

You're welcome to go start another anti-trans thread rather than regailing me with all your non-sequitur transgender talking points.

I read this like 3 time and have no idea what it's saying. With respect, are you high?

Literally nothing worth responding to here relevant to the thread.

The MAGA brand of anti-democracy is more in line with traditional fascist movements, where democracy is seen as an impediment to the cause of national unity and that the ethics of democratic rights and due process are less important than the goal of compensating against some perceived national humiliation. This nationalist approach would be a turn off to most socialists, who inherently value the idea of democracy and empowering ordinary people. Though more authoritarian leninist type state socialists criticize democracy with the logic that purely individualized rights in a capitalist society are only actually protected for the ruling class and that voting is easily subverted by the power of propertied wealthy interests. It's a subtle difference though in practice and ultimately I think you're right that the anti-democracy of the current republicans could contribute to their evolution into a de facto communist movement. Though populist workers movements tend to fizzle out before it gets to that.

This describes most working class jobs. But having a negotiated contract obviously yields higher average pay and benefits for the workers than having no such contract, in addition to better working conditions and job security.

It's not compatible with either party, but the current working class populism and disdain for educated technocrat seen in the Trump movement is surpisingly close to previous communist movements. It wouldn't take much for a charismatic right wing figure to one day latch onto that movement after trump has kicked the bucket and do an essentially ownership-to-the-workers leftist political project (in the classical economic sense) under the guise of right wing rhetoric. Especially since New Left type politics has veered away from the economic and labor goals once championed on among actual socialists and leftists. I would absolutely become a Republican if they started doing socialism. 😀

A swing and a miss. Yes, my position here is that political attacks used by Republicans in an effort to get cheap votes end up promoting the thing they are claiming to oppose. Not a real thing. Republicans in my state are using authoritarian laws for social engineering purposes. To try to marginalize the people who think a certain way about their gender that they disagree with. Intelligent people can absolutely disagree about the use of certain medical treatments on children. I don't think there is a scientific medical consesus on that issue yet. But most of the anti-trans laws being passed are far beyond this narrow part of the topic. But the anti-trans frenzy on the right is intense and highly mobilizing on the right, and highly unpopular overall, especially with young people who are vividly conscious of the discriminatory attitudes and policies being propagated.

Alright, glad you got that one figured out. 👍

Relying soley on your interpretstion of reflections from a curved object is weak considering the massive coverage of that detroit rally from many many many sources.

I mean he wrote in his book how he used to think he was gay. And this dude is always wearing eyeliner. Definitely a lot going on in there.